(1.) IT is argued by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being prosecuted for violation under s. 142 of the IT Act for having not supplied information as required in notice served on them under s. 142 of the IT Act.
(2.) HE submits that they can only be asked to furnish that information which is in their possession but cannot be forced to submit and furnish information which is not in their control and possession. In the present case, what is being asked of them is to obtain confirmation from the bank which information can be obtained under s. 131 of the IT Act directly by the assessing authority. He refers to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Bombay Trust Corpn. (1938) 6 ITR 445 (Bom) in his support. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the notice calling upon the petitioners to furnish information was broader and encompasses more information than the one as is being referred to by counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the notice has also demanded information from the petitioners other than the confirmation of bank. He further submits that at the time of framing of notice, the trial Court has gone into the material placed before it and was satisfied that the petitioners should be summoned to face the prosecution. He, however, submits that the petitioners were not heard at this stage.
(3.) HEARD counsel for the parties. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 1992 SC 2206, the petitioners if aggrieved of any material that has not been considered by the trial Court at the time of framing of notice, they would be in a position to approach the Court again and draw its attention to the material which they feel ought to have been considered. Consequently, the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the trial Court in terms of K.M. Mathew's case (supra) and place before it any material, circular, rule, regulation, law or judgment which needs attention while framing of notice under s. 251 Cr.PC.